1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the corresponding parts as follows. Accordingly, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment:

In addition, as of December 6, 201, the director of the Bobial Tax Office, to which the defendant belongs, did not give the notice of taxation prior to giving the notice of the decision of taxation disposition in this case, and thereby, the plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to undergo the pre-assessment review, which constitutes a serious illegal act infringing the plaintiff's procedural right.

B. Article 14 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court provides that “No evidence to acknowledge objection exists” shall be deemed as “No evidence to acknowledge objection (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da209534, Oct. 29, 2015, etc., where the Plaintiff was appointed).”

(c)in the following cases at the seventh and tenth level of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added:

“C) There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the director of the Boli Tax Office did not notify the notice of taxation due to the defect in the notice of taxation, and rather, according to the Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2, the director of the Boli Tax Office notified the notice of taxation, and it is recognized that the prior notice of taxation was applied on September 2, 201. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

A person shall be appointed.

(d)as follows, in the seventh and Fifteenth sentence of the first instance court, add the following:

“The property damage and mental damage alleged by the Plaintiff” is due to the illegal taxation against the Plaintiff, and the instant legal entity was unable to obtain a loan due to the wind of the registration of the seizure of the Plaintiff’s real estate.